| ▲ | lifeisstillgood 4 days ago |
| It’s incredible and Inwish long life and happiness to the newborn and her family I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that “someone born without a womb is a woman” and “hey we can transplant wombs now” Thousands of scientists and medical practitioners have taken thousands of baby steps to get to this point. We should fund every single one of them - we never know where research will take us. |
|
| ▲ | jl6 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It’s not that confusing. “Has a womb” is not a common definition of “woman”. Women don’t stop being women after having a hysterectomy. The woman in question is a woman because her sexual differentiation followed the female pathway. Just because in her case that pathway led to a DSD variant doesn’t undo the rest of her female development or make her a little bit less of a woman, or male, or a third sex. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's at least four common definitions of "woman", and I have in fact seen people use "has a womb" as one of them despite, as you may guess, all the people piling on immediately with a reply along the lines of what you yourself say — that this would exclude women who have had a hysterectomy. The other three I've commonly seen are: (1) as you suggest, developmental pathway — which tends to trip people up over androgen insensitivity, and is also why puberty blockers are part of the public debate (2) chromosomes — which has the problem of 0.6-1.0% of the population doing something else besides the normal XX/XY and (3) current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public, and also in private by anyone who has had top surgery but not bottom surgery. | | |
| ▲ | aisenik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Why do you use the the Nazi demographic term "transvestite?" (also, you should just not talk about trans people as you display immense ignorance in a very short time, you clearly have a concept of trans bodies that is rooted in fascist propaganda: trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). | | |
| ▲ | arrowsmith 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I promise I'm asking this question in good faith because I would genuinely love to understand your reasoning: why does the term "transvestite" have anything to do with Nazism? From what I remember, that word was common and acceptable when I was growing up in the 90s, and I don't remember any Nazis using it. Nor did anyone tell me that the word "transvestite" was derogatory or offensive, although if social mores have shifted then fine, I won't say it. What did I miss? | | |
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | no worries, people typically use “transgender” or “trans” as an umbrella term these days I have heard of folks who claim the label “transveatite” for themselves. Others see it as derogatory. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I suspect there may have been a misunderstanding of my earlier comment that led to this chain. Where I wrote above: > current external physical appearance — which tends to lead to confusion by both transvestites in public That wasn't a statement about being transgender. I was saying that people judge clothing, and are confused by that clothing. "Public" being about clothing, because there aren't many public places where you're going to see enough skin for anything else to cause confusion. ("vest" as in vestments, clothing). |
| |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The emotions fueling my reaction are based on the way I experienced the word as a child in the 80s and 90s, and I could delve deeper into that but it's mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that I experienced the word in hateful ways. In truth, I misspoke when I said "Nazi demographic" and had intended to write "Nazi era demographic," as the word's origination was in its use to describe the nascent trans community in Weimar Germany. In fact, the Nazis disregarded the validity of trans status entirely and the folks we'd regard as trans women today were classified as homosexual men before being subjected to the violence of the Nazi state. Trans men received a different, no less humiliating punishment. The motivation in asking the question, beyond my disgust, is that I have observed a trend on this site of anachronistic language that fell out of favor after being associated with hate speech. It is generally being used in contexts supportive of the prominent far right agenda, and I seek to illuminate the motivations of the commentators who facilitate such odious reversions in discourse. I apologize for my lack of clarity. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The word "transvestite" predates the Nazis by a few decades, coined by someone the Nazis hated because he was gay and Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Hirschfeld > trans women on HRT develop breasts without surgery). Transgender people go both directions, not only AMAB but also AFAB. | | |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I did intend to type "Nazi era", though I find the clarification is meaningless to the point. I'm all for reclaiming words, but I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." e: The far more interesting discussion is whether the revival of eugenics-era language is justifiable. This is hardly the first example on this site of arrogant commentators casually reviving language that came to be understood as hateful in the 20th century. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I am unaware of any significant efforts to reclaim and promote the word in question. It is anachronistic and inextricably connected to 20th century transphobia and violence against trans women in particular It's the primary term I grew up with in the UK specifically about what is also called cross-dressing. It's also used by one of my favourite comedians, Suzy Eddie Izzard, as self-description ("executive transvestite") before she identified as transgender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dress_to_Kill_(Eddie_Izzard) > Re: your second point, a closer reading of the comments will show that this thread is discussing "women." 1) Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. 2) I am informed that many trans women have implants before hormones. In fact, one woman I know openly discussed face surgery as part of her transition. Also: cis women have breast surgery. I'm told most often as a reduction. Facebook, in its complete uselessness, has advertised the surgery to me along with dick pills. | | |
| ▲ | aisenik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It's bizarre that you try to talk down about trans issues that you are not informed about and label your interlocutor, a trans woman, as transphobic for not highlighting trans men when talking specifically about women. If the answer to why you use the word "transvestite" is "I am steeped in 90s celebrity and watched RHPS" fine, but your disingenuous accusations of transphobia and extreme interest in a topic you seem exceptionally ignorant about fit a corrosive pattern that attempts to shutdown meaningful discussion. The rise of eugenics-era language is deeply concerning and I would actually like to better understand why this site in particular has seen an increase of commentary using regressive 20th century language. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I am very confused by your response. I listed a bunch of different *common* definitions of "what is a woman" and showed that *all of them have flaws*. It's the idea of "common sense language" that I'm opposing here, because the reality is much more interesting than such simple definitions. I am also not labelling *you* transphobic at all. It was quite obvious that you are not, even before you stated you are a trans woman. Fun fact: myself, gender fluid. (Huh, first time I've said that in a pubic forum with my name on it…) When I wrote: > Quite a lot of transphobes focus entirely on women, thus ignoring how their own rules end up forcing trans men to end up in women's-only spaces. This sentence is not about you. It's a much more general observation, noting what is wrong with *the public discourse*, specifically that transphobes insist on certain definitions which end up with outcomes that they themselves are dissatisfied with. > RHPS While I also watched the Rocky Horror Picture Show in my teens (late 90s), that film (1975) predates me by so much, I wasn't sure if they used "transvestite" to mean "cross dressing" or "transgender". Where I first used the word "transvestite" to your objection, I meant specifically what is also called "cross dressing", because I was talking about *outward appearance in public*, and clothes are the outward appearance in public. That and hair, I guess. My hair is long enough I've had at least one straight guy get half way through a wolf-whistle before noticing a beard. At least, I assume they were straight, given the appearance of a beard was simultaneous with them stopping. |
|
| |
| ▲ | computerthings 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | Dildonics4All 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | crooked-v 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb (https://kansasreflector.com/2023/07/05/what-is-a-woman-heres...). | | |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > US Republicans have literally passed laws defining "woman" based on having a functioning womb The bill referenced makes no direct mention of womb, nor functioning. You're using "literally" a bit unfaithfully there. from the law > a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system
is developed to produce ova, | | |
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | isn’t having a functioning uterus a hard prerequisite to the ability to produce ova? “is developed to produce ova” is a statement about current capability. If they meant to include women with hysterectomies, they would have worded it differently, like “is or once was developed to produce ova;” if they meant to include women with non-functioning wombs, they would have written more broadly, like “is of the type that usually produces ova” or something. | | |
| ▲ | belorn 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The answer is a yes, as in, the ovaries can still ovulate even without a uterus. The ovaries also continue to produce hormones, through there are a feedback loop between the uterus and ovaries which get disrupted without a uterus. It is somewhat similar to how men with vasectomy still produce sperm. | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The uterus itself doesn't have much to do with ova production. Are you including ovary removal in your definition of hysterectomy? Or are you defining "ova production" as including fertilization/implantation? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tomlockwood 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway? | | |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends why you need to know and with what level of accuracy. Just looking at their face is about 96%-98% accurate[0], and becomes even more accurate when other cues are available such as voice, gait, and build. For casual purposes, humans are incredibly good at predicting sex, without any technology or scientific understanding. One might speculate that being able to accurately find a mate is an evolutionary advantage. For the last few fractions of a percent accuracy, a SRY cheek swab test is a simple non-invasive screening test that can flag individuals for further investigation. World Athletics have just implemented this test, stating it is “a highly accurate proxy for biological sex”.[1] A positive result in this screening test could be combined with a finger prick test for testosterone level to provide further information, and at this point we’re into methods of medical diagnosis of DSDs. About 1 in 5000 individuals will have a DSD, some of which are still unambiguously male or female (e.g. XXY Klinefelter syndrome), and some of which are almost unique individuals that defy categorization. At this point, it is popular to seize on those rare individuals and declare “aha! So sex isn’t binary then! So it must be a spectrum!”, and while this is surely well-intentioned, it is scientifically illiterate.[2] I suspect part of the confusion is interpreting “binary” as a mathematical Boolean value (where exceptions cannot, by definition, exist) rather than as a scientific classification, where exceptions can and do exist and “prove the rule”. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004269892... [1] https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/articles/cj91dr17d1no.am... [2] https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectr... | | |
| ▲ | bryan_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The question was: >What tests with what results would conclusively show which individuals went down which pathway? You've managed to provide 0 tests that conclusively answer the question. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 2 days ago | parent [-] | | If your target level of accuracy is 100%, there is probably no medical test that can show anything. Did you know there is no conclusive test for Alzheimer’s, IBS, migraines, and dozens more physical conditions, nor for any psychiatric condition? Do you think these aren’t real, or that they cannot be discerned to a useful degree of accuracy? | | |
| ▲ | bryan_w 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well that's why when the law is concerned, it usually defers identification to a trained professional (e.g. as determined by a doctor ). Besides that, there are things you can determine with certainty: The presence of a substance in blood for example | | |
| ▲ | jl6 a day ago | parent [-] | | A physical examination by a doctor, possibly augmented by imaging, is an excellent way to determine sex if previous observations and tests have been ambiguous. This is rarely a great difficulty, but when it is, it's how DSDs get diagnosed. |
| |
| ▲ | tomlockwood a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | So which tests with which results would you rely on? | | |
| ▲ | jl6 a day ago | parent [-] | | Which bit are you having difficulty understanding? Make trivial observations if you want moderate accuracy (~99%), use a cheek swab or genetic test if you want greater accuracy, consult a doctor if you are still unsure. | | |
| ▲ | tomlockwood 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which part of my question are you having difficulty understanding? If this is so important and accurate surely you can name and explain the important and accurate tests, and their results. Maybe it isn't as simple as you say? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tomlockwood 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So the SRY cheek swab test that the IOC ruled ineffective before the 2000 Olympics is what you think is accurate? Interesting. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It is a screening test, not a diagnostic test. False positives are possible, but so are followup tests for those cases. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | googlryas 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do you suppose such a test could even exist? |
| |
| ▲ | gcr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A friend of mine takes estrogen and has breasts, feminine voice, etc. Her body’s arguably taken both sexual differentiation pathways over the years. I think even this definition isn’t so clear-cut. | | |
| ▲ | jl6 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Body modification through technology doesn’t really encroach on the scientific classification of the natural world. The Vacanti mouse which had an apparent human ear grown on its back was an amazing thing in its own right, but its existence doesn’t mean we need to update our understanding of what a mouse is. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | aaaja 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I would like to reflect on the timing of this - the UK Supreme Court just ruled something about a woman is a “biological” definition - and I am willing to put a lot of money on many people on both sides of that contentious debate struggling with the idea that "someone born without a womb is a woman" and "hey we can transplant wombs now" MRKH syndrome is a disorder of female sex development, and if you look at this from the perspective of developmental biology it's clear that anyone affected by this must be a woman. I feel it shouldn't be too hard an idea to struggle with. That they have a working womb transplant technique is impressive from a medical technology point of view but I think not enough has been said about the ethics of this experimentation. Personally I wouldn't risk exposing my baby to transplant anti-rejection drugs. We don't know how this may impact the short-term or long-term health of the baby. |
| |
| ▲ | XorNot 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The same could've been said about IVF - the technology is not old, the first person born to it was only in 1978. |
|
|
| ▲ | clort 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As I understand it, the court ruled that specifically within the text of the 2010 Equality Act, where it says 'woman' with no qualifier, that refers only to biological females. I do not know how many such places there are, but other parts of the act do apparently refer to other women and that they should not be discriminated against in the same way. The court is really saying that the lawmakers did not specify properly what they meant in certain cases and that they should probably modify those sections (they are carefully not to tell Parliament what to do), which can be done and does sometimes get done when such things crop up. |
| |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > but other parts of the act do apparently refer to other women and that they should not be discriminated against in the same way Yes, the act (as it should) protects people from discrimination based on gender reassignment, e.g. you can't fire someone for their gender identity or deny them from a service. The act makes it illegal to discriminate against someone due to their "sex", but a portion of the act allowed for "single sex" spaces where there is reasonable grounds to have them, but the act (reasonably at the time) did not define what sex was. A piece of Scottish legislation referred to "woman as defined by the Equality Act", but the Equality Act never said if it was referring to biological sex or gender identity, the Scottish government said it would include people with gender reassignment certificates, a "woman's rights" charity disagreed. Hence the court got involved and found the original intention was to refer to biological sex, which was confirmed by the politician that introduced the Equality Act (Harriet Harman). | | |
| ▲ | blippitybleep 4 days ago | parent [-] | | On the important issue of discrimination, Clause 9 makes it clear that a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act as a person of the acquired sex or gender. Once recognition has been granted, they will be able to claim the rights appropriate to that gender. - Lord Filkin, the Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 (18th December) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not actually a struggle whatsoever, it only is if you pretend it is thus. Humans have 2 legs and 2 arms. It I was born without legs, am I still a human? |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I was born as a baby, but I sure 'aint one now. Here's another one for you, given how many people care about XX/XY as a distinction of gender: Humans have 46 chromosomes, but by this definition, about 0.6–1.0% of live births from human mothers are of individuals who aren't human. Language is a tool we use to create categories, don't let language use you. Insisting that everything in reality must conform to the categories that language already has, is mistaking the map for the territory. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Language is more than a tool, though. It's how we understand reality. My native language is English, I speak a little Spanish, more than a little German, and used to speak some other stuff (the use it or lose it kind). And in every effort to learn those language you, well, learn things about how to structure your thought and understanding of things. I think you're mistaking my point for something else. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-] | | In learning German as an adult, one thing I keep noticing is how a single word in one language is several in the other. English: Times, German: Mal or Zeiten. "Every time" is "jedes Mal", but "good times" is "gute Zeiten". "Three times four" uses "mal". And every time a new thing gets invented, found, or imported, neologisms pop up, or words get borrowed from other cultures. In English, robins are said to have "red breasts", because the colour orange had not yet been coined when the bird needed a name, because the fruit after which the colour is named had not yet arrived. People also argue about if "vegetarian hamburgers" is a sensible term, as if the "ham" implies meat, even though (1) the meat varieties usually use beef, and (2) it's named after the place Hamburg. Before the development of hormonal and surgical solutions, the only thing trans people could do was change their clothes. At some point, the medical options are so capable that any given previous definition of gender becomes malleable. A womb implant is one such option. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but Mal and Zeit intentionally elicit different contextual meanings. The literal word is the same in English but it's quite obvious that the context is different, and in German the context calls for a different word. English, while being within the Germanic language family, isn't as particular in many ways as German can be or is. If you can speak multiple languages surely you understand what I am getting at. Vegetarian "hamburgers" is a poor example because, well, the point of calling something a "vegetarian hamburger" is that it resembles a _real_ hamburger, which would contain meat. Thus, you now understand my point about changing language in this regard. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Thus, you now understand my point about changing language in this regard. I really don't. As I say in such discussions, "you're only allowed to call them 'hamburgers' if they're from the Hamburg region, otherwise it's just a sparkling fried patty". See also: https://xkcd.com/3075/ |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you’re writing laws, your choice of language matters quite a lot. “Humans have 2 legs and 2 arms” alongside “humans are entitled to unalienable rights” could lead to foreseeable problems, so specifying in your writing that “humans typically have two legs and two arms” would be a smarter bet. It’s not important in a hacker news comment, but is important in law. | |
| ▲ | contravariant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a gross oversimplification. Virilisation is a complex process with many factors. If you're still human if you're born without legs then clearly neither genetic or developmental traits determine someone's humanity. So at what point do we call someone a woman born without a uterus? When a 'normal' pregnancy would have resulted in them having a uterus? When different genetics would have resulted in them having a uterus? Or when she herself complains that she lacks a uterus? | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm applying the same logic, I'm not simplifying anything. You are using the word "humanity" to mean something different from what the rest of the thread is talking about. To address what I think your point is, many wish to expand the malleability of basic biological concepts based on edge cases. Edge cases for which we already have definitions and categories. You are doing so now, by attempting to entrench ambiguity on the entire concept of "woman" by observing that the woman in TFA was born with a specific, heritable, abnormality that prevented the nominal development of a uterus. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | noosphr 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The biotech coming down the line will make our current culture wars seem like a disagreement between two best friends. All of the following are nearly possible today: + A man implanted with a womb giving birth. + A woman stealing genetic material and creating a baby, the gender of the second parent is irrelevant here. + A woman wanting an abortion, instead having the fetus removed and placed in an artificial womb under the care of the father. And one that I was working on: + Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely. |
| |
| ▲ | lukemercado 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Farm animals grown with their brains shut off, used as compute substrate for biological neural networks, while their biological functions are controlled remotely. I’m sorry, you were working on what? Where does one learn more about this concept? | | |
| ▲ | noosphr 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >Where does one learn more about this concept? One does not. One builds the tools to run the experiments to discover the rules. The closest are FinalSpark and CorticalLabs, but they both are only using in vitro neurons as the computational substrate. Neuralink et al. are working in vivo, but they are only doing output and don't have any plans to do input, let alone to actively disrupt normal neural activity and take control of bodily processes. If you're very interested feel free to drop me a line. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | basisword 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Supreme Court wasn’t deciding anything other than the intention of an existing law and the meaning of the words in that law (which were unclear enough to require clarification). BOTH sides of the debate claiming that the Supreme Court has now defined what constitutes a “woman” are wrong and doing nothing but polarising people for their own selfish gain. |
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This ^. It was your standard run-of-the-mill statutory interpretation case. Limited to a single badly defined statute, written somewhat carelessly. This is common for statutes. What often happens is that a "supreme" court like this will file an opinion attempting to clarify the meaning as best they can, but it really requires a statutory amendment by the legislators to fix it. Often that is what happens next. | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unfortunately when you try to explain this to people, the most common response (regardless of which side they're on) is to express that "Yes, but OUR side is right, so misrepresenting the ruling in our favor is right too." | | |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The same kind of people where if you're not on their extreme, you're on the opposite extreme and might as well be Satan himself. You're not allowed to be in the middle anymore. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 4 days ago | parent [-] | | People are rightly judged for saying they're "in the middle" because too often their "middle" is just whatever they perceptually decided the position of the left and right was and then they picked their position in reaction to that, rather then out of any consideration of the issue. People love to be "in the middle" and thus "reasonable". | | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is why the entire exercise of finding a place on a political spectrum is a trap and a scam, the only thing that really matters: Are you an extremist or a moderate? Because I can get along with a moderate person on the left, right, or anywhere in between. By the same token extremists regardless of stripe are unbearable. | |
| ▲ | vacuity 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You're both right. We don't distinguish between the reasonable middle grounders and the unreasonable ones. More broadly, we don't distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable arguments. We never have. Truth as determined by humans is basically a popularity contest. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | pyuser583 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don’t think anyone struggles with “someone born without a womb is a woman.” When a woman is born without a womb, the doctors should investigate and figure out why that is. Is something else missing? Could there be other issues? A diagnosis should be made. No such investigation is necessary when a man is born without a womb. |
| |
| ▲ | astura 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You can't tell if a newborn girl has a womb or not. Not without ultrasounds or scans. |
|
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | ck2 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | crypteur 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Nothing in nature can ever be described with 100% accuracy by any model. But that doesn't mean models are useless. So imagine why we would use the binary sex model instead of three or a spectrum or what have you. | | |
| ▲ | nathan_compton 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Simple models are useful, but they shouldn't determine who is allowed to live a normal, productive, life without some very compelling justification. Like the "binary sex model" is handy, but nothing about it makes it obvious that we should definitely and always lock gender (another non-binary model often simplified usefully into a binary) directly to biological sex. | |
| ▲ | TheCoelacanth 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are only two elements in the universe: hydrogen and helium. The binary element model is 98% accurate. | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is a bimodal distribution, or a somewhat reductive “typical male, typical female, intersex” model, so difficult to understand that we can’t use it? I don’t think people are stupid. | |
| ▲ | ck2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Random but nature related: some birds have four sexes | | |
| ▲ | aaaja 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You may be thinking of species like the white-throated sparrow. These have two morphs with distinct behaviours which lead to there being four mating combinations. Still two sexes though. |
|
| |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >1 in 1500 births is DSD and not binary (aka intersex but that term is outdated) about 1 in 2000 births have less than 4 limbs but i don't see anybody claiming its a spectrum. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You don’t hear about it because everybody understands that disabled people exist and the broad consensus is that we should accept them, and assist them to a reasonable degree. There’s little reason to discuss it. If people born with less than 4 limbs were subjected to the same treatment trans people get, you’d better believe we’d be out here talking about how not everybody has 4 limbs and we should accept that. | | |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You don’t hear about it because everybody understands that disabled people exist and the broad consensus is that we should accept them, and assist them to a reasonable degree. There’s little reason to discuss it. If people born with less than 4 limbs were subjected to the same treatment trans people get, you’d better believe we’d be out here talking about how not everybody has 4 limbs and we should accept that. Not intending to debate the ethics of abortion, but one of the reasons foetuses are aborted is due to disability, down syndrome being a notable example. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You’ll note that the people who oppose abortion generally also oppose aborting fetuses with disabilities. And among people who support abortion, a decent proportion also oppose aborting fetuses because of disabilities. | | |
| ▲ | trallnag 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's plain wrong. For example, the overwhelming majority of people in Iceland supports abortion rights AND abortion of pregnancies where there is the potential for down syndrom and other larger disabilities. Same goes for me, in general. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t understand how that makes me wrong. | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > among people who support abortion, a decent proportion also oppose aborting fetuses because of disabilities You made a claim, but without evidence. Iceland is a population, that demonstrates the contrary. Not saying you're wrong, but the second sentence is suspect and it's not interesting to argue about why. | | |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Do you think it’s interesting to respond to a general claim with a rebuttal based on a tiny and relatively insular population? The county I live in has 3x more people than the entirety of Iceland. Here’s a poll of Americans that includes a question about aborting fetuses with Down Syndrome. 44% of pro-choice respondents oppose it. I’m not wrong and there’s no reason to find that sentence suspect. https://www.kofc.org/en/resources/communications/polls/maris... |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kgwgk 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 1 in 1500 births is DSD > trans people Those populations have very little to do with each other - if anything. |
| |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | spondylosaurus 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, congenital limb differences are quite literally a spectrum. An entire limb can be absent, or just part(s) of it, or most of the limb can be present but irregularly formed... You can even mix and match with which parts are present vs absent. I know someone with an arm that stops just above the elbow but still has several (usable!) fingers extending from it. So no joint, but sorta-yes hand. |
| |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | As far as I'm aware, no one is born with both sets of working reproductive organs and in most cases there is still a "dominant" gene expression, and only some extremely rare cases where current tests fall short. So I don't see 1 in 1500 people being oppressed by the court ruling. | |
| ▲ | belorn 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sex is binary to a similar degree that humans are born with 10 fingers and 10 toes. Nothing in nature is fixed 100% of the times, but rather exist on a line of probabilities. | |
| ▲ | macintux 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For anyone like me who’s unfamiliar with the acronym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent [-] | | thanks for the link. and the section in controversy is really worth reading for nuance and thoughtful conversation. the humans with intersex conditions themselves object the term, as it tags them as sick, a "disease". their personal experience based political interventions have lead to the prohibition of cosmetic surgeries on genitals of minors, or forced hormonal sex assignment on minors, in several European countries that is. so they can decide on their own when they are old enough. that's all the personally affected humans ask for, for the next generation: let them be as they are and allow them to decide on their own. |
| |
| ▲ | dubiousdabbler 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's really offensive to tell people with DSDs they aren't their sex. Sex is binary. People with DSDs are female or male, except for extremely rare cases. | | |
| ▲ | mftrhu 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You can't say "$TRAIT is binary" when you follow that up with "$TRAIT can only be true, false, or sometimes something else". That's not a binary trait by definition. | |
| ▲ | ck2 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Some people who are DSD consider themselves binary. Some people who are DSD take great pride in being non-binary. People who are DSD have been documented for CENTURIES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_people_in_history But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known and set in stone, when their bible was invented, despite never having microscopes or telescopes or even eyeglasses | | |
| ▲ | dennis_jeeves2 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >But that's my whole point, "sex" a spectrum and it's one of the big lies perpetuated by people who insist everything was known Yes I know it's a spectrum, and all 'intelligent' people I know this (the spectrum is unevenly distributed with 2 peaks). Of all the things in the world that people understand or misunderstand, why, to you, is this particular subject even an issue? | |
| ▲ | inglor_cz 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "when their bible was invented" I can tell you that in Czechia and former East Germany, two most atheist places in the Western world, the concept of sex as a spectrum isn't especially popular either. People can be somewhat socially conservative without believing in the bible. | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You do not need microscopes, telescopes, or even eyeglasses to determine sex differences. The existence of chromosomal abnormalities does not mean we need to change the meaning of words. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | and you can tell with the naked eye that an intersex baby is intersex, and neither "properly" male or female. except when the baby looks very female but is genetically male due to androgen insensitivity syndrome. then you need that microscope again... kindergarten level logic fails at physiological sex ambiguity. and it fails even more so at gender identity issues. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Not following your point, unless it's merely to say that parsing observable reality isn't good enough to determine the precise levels of hormones flowing through someone's body, which, fine. That's certainly true. However ... physiological characteristics are in fact dictated to a large extent by hormones, and as a result one can realistically make a good inference about e.g. who has more testosterone. | | |
| ▲ | froh 3 days ago | parent [-] | | my point is: biological sex follows a bimodal distribution with some in-between data points that are not trivially assignable to one or the other pole, called "intersex" humans. they are a biological, medical reality, and they themselves ask to leave children alone and allow them to decide when and if at all they want medical interventions. | | |
| ▲ | remarkEon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Even calling it bimodal obscures the truth, though. When people read "bimodal" they think of the two-humped-camel plot, when reality is like two 60-story skyscrapers a mile apart with an apartment building or two in between. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sapphicsnail 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | People routinely can't tell I'm trans. The differences are a lot more subtle than people realize. |
| |
| ▲ | worik 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent [-] | | did you read the link? there are humans with ambiguous genitals (fka "intersex"), there are women with androgen insensitivity, genitally xy, born as perfect little girls, vulva and all, but alas, testicles. bummer no. sex, biological sex, is not binary. | | |
| ▲ | worik 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No I know that not every single human fits. That does nor stop it being a binary, or that binary being a major fault line This is a natural biological system, not a logical system. Cases that do not fit do not disprove the rule | | |
| ▲ | froh 2 days ago | parent [-] | | the strict binary is a world view, not science. scientifically, biological sex in humans follows a bimodal distribution with few but not zero data points between the two modes. and these are not just one single third data point but a number of them. forcibly assigning those to one of the two modes is unscientific and based of a binary world view. which is why some nations allow to put "diverse" as sex at birth, or do away with that at all. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | BriggyDwiggs42 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >it’s really offensive to tell people with DSDs they aren’t their sex. Not really true. Some people maybe. >Sex is binary Sex is complicated. Traits cluster bimodally, but it would be reductive, scientifically inaccurate, to say it’s a simple binary. >People with DSDs are female or male That depends on how female and male are categorized. The line between in the trait cluster and outside of the trait cluster is arbitrary. So it depends where you draw that line. | |
| ▲ | megaloblasto 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The point is sex is a spectrum, we don't have to put everyone in little boxes then get upset when things aren't so clearly defined. | | |
| ▲ | ChocolateGod 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Expressed sexual characteristics are a spectrum when there are mutations in the genes involved in the binary system of sex. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | not sure what you mean, but there are disturbances in the development of sex, indeed. do you agree to that medical fact? | |
| ▲ | megaloblasto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? Sex is a spectrum, this is a fact. There are people born with testicles and rudimentary ovaries. There are people born with breasts and long penis-like clitorides. I encourage you to try and not categorize everything into neat little boxes. |
| |
| ▲ | mattmanser 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Saying it's a spectrum implies to most people there's some sort of Gaussian distribution and there's not. There's not like 20% of humans with mammary glands and a scrotum, right? Or 10% with no reproductive organs. Or 15% with both sets. The obvious flip side of 1 in 1500 is that 1499 out of 1500 are binary. So there's not really a spectrum as most people would understand that word. | | |
| ▲ | froh 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The word you're looking for is "bimodal distribution". The spectrum of sex characteristics is a bimodal distribution with two peaks. and the vast majority of all humans fall close to one of the two peaks peaks. however, they indeed exist medically classified circumstances for bodily sexual expression that is not on one of the peaks but somewhere in between. and the percentage of those not close to the peaks is heavily contested and varies between 1 in 15000 ( putting extremely high bars on "uh wen can't tell") to 17 in 1000 (counting for example a larger clit as a penis-y ambiguous thing) bimodal distribution with distinct peaks and a low but non-zero density between the peaks. | |
| ▲ | megaloblasto 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | To add to the other reply, nearly 100% of people classified as men at birth do have mammary glands and can lactate if they take certain medication. Some men can lactate without medication. |
|
| |
| ▲ | seethedeaduu 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed, and same goes for trans people. |
| |
| ▲ | aaaja 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The woman in the article has a DSD that only affects female sex development. Plus she has working ovaries. From either of these facts one can conclude that she is female. I don't know why you think this is a conservative lie. It is not. | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | dyauspitr 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is just fudging to justify some trans based delusion. It’s all pretty straightforward. |